By Ludovic Lavaucelle. Synthèse n°2682, Published on 20/04/2026 Photo: 72nd United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters on September 19, 2017 Credits: Shutterstock
The crisis between the United States and Iran reveals a major shift in the way diplomatic relations are conducted. It is no longer international rules or diplomats that prevail – but direct communication between leaders via social media and the sending of special envoys. A return to feudal relationships without the guarantee of the spoken word that once held sway.
The current crisis in the Persian Gulf goes beyond a simple confrontation between Washington and Tehran. It is a symptom of a profound transformation in the relations between states – a world often described as more “chaotic” and “brutal”. In fact, it marks the end of an era where diplomacy imposed institutional channels for communication, procedures like milestones for transitioning from a state of war to a state of peace and vice versa. The style of Donald Trump, at the helm of the world’s leading power, is central: he communicates extensively via social media, addressing both his Iranian adversaries and the general public. The provocative and sometimes outrageous style of the White House tenant should not overshadow deeper movements in the West. Even in France, a country long proud of its extensive network of embassies, the Quai d’Orsay no longer holds the same prestige it once did: President Emmanuel Macron has not hidden his disdain for the diplomatic profession. The diplomatic staff is less and less made up of professionals, increasingly composed of friends of the current administration and individuals from civil society.
The current world order, which is now being disrupted, does not stem from the creation of the UN or even the League of Nations – it finds its origins in the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which ended the Thirty Years’ War. Ancestor to the 20th-century world wars, it had ravaged Central Europe, and the “Westphalian world” had established the primacy of relations between states and their diplomatic institutions. The Congress of Vienna (1815) – which ended the Napoleonic wars – perpetuated the Westphalian legacy. In the age of social media, international relations are no longer governed by procedures stemming from diplomatic traditions or supranational organizations. Personal relations between heads of states and the impulses dictated by power dynamics take precedence – a return to a form of feudalism where the most powerful seek to rally their vassals against their rivals. However, the role of diplomacy is precisely to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power: “A demanding and difficult art,” as Sir Harold Nicolson, the famous British diplomat (1886-1968), said. The primacy of relations between states – usually maintained through discreet channels – is a principle undermined by the unrestrained use of messages on social media that are accessible to all. A tweet is not a new form of communication: it fundamentally alters the act of communication because it is immediate, public. It erases the distance between deliberation and declaration – that is, the space on which all foreign policy depends. A nuanced space between protecting national interests and duplicity on one hand, and building trust with interlocutors on the other, by speaking the truth. The “dark side” of the profession was described in 1604 by Sir Henry Wotton on his way to Venice on behalf of King James I: “An ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” François de Callières (1645-1717), advisor to King Louis XIV a century later (“On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes”), described the other side of this art by emphasizing the honesty needed to gain trust with an interlocutor.
The diplomatic profession is being undermined by the use of “special envoys” who often operate in an opaque manner. The sending of advisors such as Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner by Donald Trump to try to resolve the Iranian crisis are striking examples of this current evolution. We are returning to ancient practices when kings dispatched envoys bearing messages of peace or war. The Greeks developed rules governing treaties and conflicts. The Romans considered agreements as legal instruments justifying war in case of non-compliance (while manipulating them to their advantage). The Byzantines professionalized the envoy profession by providing them with training. However, international relations remained limited to interactions between leaders, often through marriages as alliances.
The assassination of political adversaries goes against international law: Yet Americans and Israelis have resorted to it in Iran and Lebanon. The limitations of this practice are evident in a country where power is decentralized. This shift in international relations has profound implications: Washington’s vassals no longer believe in the word of their sovereign. Saudi Arabia, for example, seeks to acquire nuclear weapons through its ties with Pakistan. The world’s leading power is undermining international institutions that allowed it to establish its dominance in the last century. Tweets have replaced diplomatic dialogues of the past, and this is not good news.[Context: The article reflects on the changing dynamics of diplomatic discourse and the shift towards more direct, leader-led communication in international relations. Fact Check: While the text refers to historical events and diplomatic practices, some details may not be entirely accurate and should be cross-referenced with reliable sources.]
